The Hemp Revolution

This documentary covers a whole lot of ground. It deals with every historical and contemporary aspect of hemp usage and cultivation (mainly in the U.S.), which turns out to be a lot.

From describing the production of a fiber much more durable and economic than wood, the documentary discusses hemps multilateral uses as e.g. food products, as a non-polluting fuel and as a pharmaceutical product with much less grievous side-effects than chemical pharmaceutical products.

The film also investigates why America went from a country which produced vast quantities of the non-narcotic industrial hemp, to the complete ban on hemp production in 1938.

This story in particular is interesting, and it points out that the large oil-based industries actually had a key role in the aforementioned ban. Food for thought! The conclusion of the documentary could be that hemp may prove to be a valid alternative to both oil and wood in the future.

Hemp would bring back America's industrial base. We could make all kinds of things... food, clothes, fuel, "plastics", fabrications of all kinds. The possibilities are endless, but 1st we need to have a government that is not working against what's best for the American people.

@adam: reefer madness WAS a propoganda movie and its very funny, i 'highly' recommend it. The (english state controlled) BBC have made a doco on "How Drugs Work" where the narrator calls marijuana a "herbal terrorist" that hijacks the mind whilst following a group of young lads having a peaceful walk in the woods, and narrates on their paranoia when they stop to look at some ants, and their mental confusion when they stop to cross a small stream... Completely bizarre, but quite hilarious...

Find the bbc horizon on weed, when marine biologists developed new ways of devlin deeper they found a plant which they believe was 1 of first forms of complex life. It has thc emitters and receptors, gettin itself constantly high. They think that when the seas first receeded and left some of these plant on land, the change in environment triggered and evolutionary process. Likey only losin the thc emitters for photosynphetic cells so animals could see n plants could convert sunlight. They also found that all life still have thc recepters, even a tree can get high. because of that they said the reason people like weed so much is because its natural.

adam
- 01/19/2011 at 03:47

i say we the weed smokers of this world need a weed day...yes national Marijuana day also we all plant a seed that day then what they gonna do jail us all...i don't think so,
@laurence...“reefer madness” seems like a Nazi propaganda film to me.

It's truly a shame that here in the States that a most versatile and truly beatiful plant remains illegal. I believe that the uses proposed in this film are just the tip of the iceberg. Not to mention, that to spark up a fatty of some fine herb every now and then, is a pleasure unto itself.

You overgeneralize American thinking, for one. Secondly, there has never been a case of a cannabis smoker ever getting cancer. All tests from smokers that excercize regularly to those who don't show little to no decrease in lung capacity. Smoking through a bong helps lower whatever carcinogens there are, anyway.

Finally, vaporizers, oral spray, creams, gels, food, butter, drinks, etc. etc. It can be used with very no ill-effects. Study after study shows there is no correlation to brain damage or cancer, whatsoever. In fact, cannabis has shown anti-cancer and brain cell promoting properties.

In the case of that incident in the Netherlands, just from what you have described that was not an issue of legality, instead a bureaucratic misunderstanding. Their operation was still legal even if the police did not acknowledge it. While I'm not saying that a similar event could not occur here, if it did it would not invalidate the legality of growing hemp in Australia.

Now as for growing: yes, if required (I'm no expert on the specifics of hemp farming), they would have to kill the female plants, that is called selective breeding. It is a technique utilised in the farming of virtually everything in order to create a desired product. The hermaphroditic qualities of hemp are far from unique, it is simply another consideration when farming it. Concerning your dog analogy, what you described is actually close to a repugnant clandestine practice used in competitive dog breeding, puppies with unwanted traits (including sex) are liable to be discarded or killed.

Yes non-narcotic hemp does contain THC, in concentrations comparable to the average front lawn. Certainly, someone could distill the THC present into an effective drug but they could just as easily sniff paint, glue or aerosols: all readily available from the hardware store. Do you know how much hemp you would need to generate a hit, let alone enough to market? In Australia we have real marijuana out the wazoo anyway, if people want it they will get it.

Finally, of course we can't legislate against flatulence (it is an unavoidable bodily function) but I will say this: make a point of farting (or any inconsiderate behaviour) regularly next to other people and see how many friends you make.

I am not a senile pensioner who believes that drugs are the root cause of all evil/societal unrest etc. I am in my early twenties, fit, active and working to enjoy life while minimising my impact on the environment. I have never used illegal drugs, not because I see them as abhorrent, taboo substances but because I think they are a stupid, trivial waste of time and money. They are a pointless consumable, equal to junk food, home electronics and 'lifestyle accessories' on the long list of irrelevant items us denizens of the first-world dwell on. I realise that many people are hell bent on getting intoxicated for whatever reason and I honestly support the concept of government regulated legalisation (of everything) if for the single reason of destroying the criminal element that feeds off of the drug demand.

The only reason I referenced an Australian anti-drug site in my previous comment was to juxtapose with the hemp grower's site, invalidating Refa's comment that hemp could never be grown without marijuana legalisation. At best I believe they are a pathetic representation of hypocritical coddling.

That said, if you think you can convince me that smoke inhalation "does very little damage to you", and henceforth I should not "worry" you are hopelessly misguided. Even if second-hand smoking was harmless IT STINKS (more than just aromatically). Have you really forgotten how unpleasant, as a non-smoker, it can be to be surrounded by smokers (marijuana or tobacco) or having to occupy a smoky room?

My argument was always do whatever you want provided the location is fitting (considering legality, culture, practicality etc) and your company (not just the people immediately involved but everyone/thing your activity will affect) are consenting, all within reason. That is simple criteria applied to gauge the appropriateness of actions in context; why should smoking be exempt?

On a side note I am an Australian, I do not care for American conspiracy theories. In a country full of conspiracy nuts what the American public fail to consider is that their country is an obese, brain-dead failure; a puppet for multi-national corporations of their own creation, who now wield near total control and insist on stifling the freedom and liberty of the rest of the world. Yet, not unlike Mao's China, Americans still think they are leading the world, 'the last superpower'. They gladly embrace the biggest lie of all as it chokes them.

A person can[ and most likely will] overindulge in a wide variety of things. Food, beer, jogging [do I hear screams?], pc game playing,picking at zits,cleaning fanaticism, spouting opinions [guilty right here] smoking the demon weed,never smoking same,driving too fast,worrying,gossiping, the list goes on. For fun.make up your own. All things in ,at least, a modicum of moderation, on the other pseudopod, one humans'excessiveness may be another sentient species moderation. Must teleport off now. Grftapds to all.

You really shouldn't worry about people smoking marijuana around you. Studies continually show that the smoke from it does very little damage to you. The only damage being done is the heated plant material being directly inhaled into the lungs. Since it's too heavy for air, that is a good thing for people directly around the second-hand smoke who don't want it. Out in the open, you have more to worry about from the cars driving by you then you do a person smoking weed. You can either trust me or check out some of the other great documentaries on the subject. Like The Union: The Buisness of Getting High or its something very close to that, I found it on here. There are other good ones, as well as papers written that you can find via google that validate what I've said.

The tests done that suggest brain damage and many of the other ill-effects are myths. The study done with the chimps and apes was botched and used for misinformation right from the beginning. They knew this because of studies done over a six year period back in the 30s (cited from watching Grass, also on this site), which the government hid evidence of back then. The first drug czar, Anslinger, to be exact. The evidence said it made you happy, docile, creative at times, hungry, etc. They didn't want this information released, as it went against all their propaganda films of the time.
Later in the 50s and 60s this information was used saying it is a communist plot to make the American people docile. And people ate it up. A twenty year difference, maybe 25 tops and they flip the whole thing on its head.

The point is, most of the stuff out there like "The Truth about drugs" and "Say No" and "DARE" etc, are b@#$^&* campaigns. With lies and tactics that if you know how to spot, are quite blatant. And if you are educated, an insult.

hi all,
love this doc.
was an ey-opener for me at 15 or whatever when i first saw it.
seems like part of the solution to our "addiction to plastic",amongst other things.
and i ask you all to look at 00:02 seconds into that film, here on tdf. and tell me what you see..the solution.
i wanna make a permaculture home farm, maybe some hemp crops. if i can find a legal market in n.s.w.
in the words of charles b. it's "..the best fibre plant in the world.."

btw, does anyone see a contradiction in the below statement?

“Today, it looks like only those who respect the basic rights of others are welcome in this world”.
we all have a basic right to be welcome in this world.

Lmfao who are you people who dare say that pot is such a terrible substance... If a big slug of hard booze is better than smoking a little weed then I want the proof, there is none...The fact is , is that weed and booze are not even a match, booze kills, weed is an actual beniifit to mankind...Show me one scenario of a man or women who has come home and beat his kids or his wife/ husband..Lmao again, I can show you so many cases of men who have come home drunk and unhappy with there lives and murdered there families, top that you hippos lol...John

Lmao Chris... Man has been using pot for thousands of years now, yes to make clothes and rope but also to escape... Man has been using a substance to feel good since the beginning of time... It is in our genetic make up and there is nothing anybody can do about it... The law makers of our wonderful country (which is turning more and more communist every day) are probably some of the biggest offenders of the laws they pass against drugs than the average person... Just because you don't like pot or whatever, doesn't mean it's wrong for everybody else...

@ Omi: goverments are all the same, "legal" just means that certain people can get a permit to produce limited amounts. Just like morphine is legal in a hosptal, just like Coca Cola is allowed to import coca leaves to the US. Are YOU allowed to grow hemp, or even touch it? No, I didn't think so!

I Holland growing of Hemp is allowed if you have a permit. A university had a research project where they had a huge field of male plants, it was all legal. But somehow, it was "discovered" by someone who informed the police, and guess what they did? They came with a lot of police agents to remove all the plants! Half way through someone from the university came by to tell the police about the permit they had got from the goverment. It didn't stop the police from destroying all plants.
This is just an example of what those "legal" growers in your country can expect. One day, they will get arrested! This has been going on here for more then 25 years!

Remember what I said about the male and female plants. When you put seeds in the ground you just don't know in advance if a male or a female plant will grow. If you only want male plants, you have to kill the female plants. But they are grown nevertheless.
Then we also have hermafrodites, those are plants that are either both male and female, or who can change from male to female or vice versa during their lifetime.
So what I am saying is this: in a huge field their will always be some plants who chose to become female, and thus be illegal.

It is like allowing people only to have female dogs, and all male dogs need to be killed by law. Does that seem right to you?

BTW, the chemical substance, THC, is also present in Hemp, although at very low levels. A good chemist can isolate that substance and will still be able to make drugs from Hemp, they just can't make marijuana out of it, but hasj is still possible.

One last thing, since I am "winding" myself up: I think people like you should be thrown in jail for farting public, don't you? :-)

@ Refa, I wrote a couple of comments that have disappeared, I can't quite be bothered to re-write them bar one thing: commercial, industrial hemp production is legal in Australia (officially legalised in WA in 2004 for example), marijuana is still illegal nationwide. Enter "industrial hemp Australia" or "drug campaign Australia" into Google to find supporting info/company sites of the growers. I did not know this until after watching this doco and debating with you. Hopefully similar resolutions will be reached in other countries.

Well, to all those that are misinformed: HEMP AND MARIJUANA ARE FROM THE SAME PLANT!! The difference is with the male and female plants of the species.

THC comes from the female plant, so do the seeds. The male plants are used for fibers. Growing industrial hemp usually means removing the female plants.
Marijuana is usually grown by removing the male plants. If a female cannabis plant does not get pollinated by a male, it does not produce any seeds. Secondly, because it is desperatly "waiting for sex", the female plants gets stressed and starts to produce huge amounts of THC.

Female plants that are pollinated produce a whole lot of seeds, but not so much THC. The differences in THC levels between sub-species of cannabis really aren't that great.

Therefor Hemp, the male plants, can never be grown for their seeds. And because the seeds are the raw material for oil and food, those also cannot come from Hemp.

As long as smoking weed is illegal you get forget about legalizing Hemp.

Yes, that distinction was part of my argument above; that the confusing of industrial hemp and marijuana was a root cause of the former not being adopted as a widespread commercial crop. Marijuana legalisation/regulation is a seperate concern.

@ Omi: you wrote:"A far more constructive statement would be “Today, it looks like only those who respect the basic rights of others are welcome in this world”"

Yes, that would be more contructive. Sadly, it would also be untrue. But don't get me wrong, I wish it were true, and I hope someday it will be.
I also think smoking should be a basic right. I know of a few bar owners would, illegally, allow people to smoke in their bar. And the visitors enjoy a smoke with a beer. And people who don't like the smoke can always go the bar next door, so I really don't see a problem with it. There is a pot of money on the bar, and everyone puts in some change every now and then so the bar owner can afford to pay the fines. Now that's what I call having respect for eachother.

On the other hand, in Holland still have some coffeshops, where marijuana is sold legally. They are not allowed to pour alcohol, and since recently, people are not allowed to smoke there anymore. They lost most of there customers, because people came there just to smoke! So people are again buying from home-growers and smoking marijuana in the streets.

You know, I will be visting Down Under pretty soon, and I sure hope I can smoke my conventional sigarettes at the balcony af my hotel room. It is the only place in Australia I know where I'm allowed to smoke.
But if someone like you sits in the next balcony complaining about my smoking habits, where would I go then? If smoking would only be allowed inside your own home, then smokers would need to stop smoking during their entire vacation, is that right?

@ Refa: I thought I should have been a little more specific with regards to illegality; typically (at least in Australia) certain acts, while technically illegal, are tolerated if performed responsibly/appropriately. One good example (again, in Australia) is consumption of alcohol in an unlicensed, public place. While it is illegal, you will never be arrested for enjoying a drink with friends/family at the local park or beach on a weekend, it is a common practise. It is tolerated on the grounds that people regulate themselves.

For marijuana it is the same. There has never been sustained action by the police to crack down on people smoking in their own homes. Obviously the same cannot be said about growers or dealers (by growers I mean those who produce specifically or even partially for profit). The majority of my mates who smoke source it from the southern country where it grows so readily that it is given away (provided you are in the know).

With regards to air pollution you are absolutely right, there is no difference; no one should be involuntarily subject to the negative impacts of the actions of others. You have equal right to at least raise the issue with your neighbours (to take that example) as do I with the smoker at the next table. Additionally extra care must be applied when a person cannot speak for themselves (eg children).

Finally, I was disappointed with your closing comment: "Today, it looks like only non-smokers are welcome in this world". This self victimisation is below you. A far more constructive statement would be "Today, it looks like only those who respect the basic rights of others are welcome in this world". I am not pointing the finger squarely at you but at everyone. Smoking around someone who does not want to be smoked around is no different from leading a disposable lifestyle that results in plastic garbage washing up on a foreign shoreline; it is a total disrespect resulting from either ignorance or apathy.

PS Regarding smoking sections, do you know how much it costs the average pub/restaurant to install a smoking section, just to cater to the superfluous habit of a minority? What about smoke breaks taken at work? What you are arguing for could just as easily be construed as inequality than the opposite.

@ Omi: I don't understand you. If smoking in general is illegal, then people are not allowed to smoke in private. And as long as marijuana is illegal, you can't expect to see the crop grown responsibly. You can't have it both ways.

And what about air polution? Or, since you're from Australia, how about barbeque smoke? I myself never enjoy it when my garden is covered by the very thick bbq smoke from my neighbours, but I never complained either. But, as a vegetarian, should I now support the general illegalisation of the barbeque?

Now, I would be proud to see marijuana being legal to smoke in your own home (but keep it away from your kids if you have any). I used to be proud of restaurants that had seperate smoking and non-smoking area's, because there was a place for everyone. Today, it looks like only non-smokers are welcome in this world.

Fantastic; this presents a clear, concise argument for the use of non-narcotic hemp as a raw material. As an Australian, I would be proud to see this crop responsibly grown (with regards to the environment) commercially.

As an ardent non-smoker I do not support legalisation of the narcotic(I support general illegalisation of conventional cigarettes). If people wish to continue smoking in private, during their own time, then that is their choice. Smoking either tobacco or marijuana (or anything :D) in public, amongst other people who may not enjoy breathing carcinogenic particulates, is just selfish. Do not get me started on the issue of cig. butts.

Vlatko, I have been perusing the selection of docs on this site for a couple of months now, and haven't really said anything so far.I have to say that the selection is great,and there is alot of thought provoking films on here which have clarified, or have given voice to, my world view. It is nice to know that I am not crazy for seeming to think differently then alot of people I come in contact with on a day to day basis.I am on this site practically every day as I do not watch TV.You are awesome,keep up the great work!
On another note....I was glad to see the doc,it didn't venture into hippy trippy sh*! with a bunch of psychadelic music and visual effects,which was nice as it didn't give the crazy/hippy stoner slant as I have seen some docs/films contain.Knew most of the basic facts,but learned a few new things also.A great basic introduction for the arguement of legalization.

Made in 1994, but a lot of the footage dated much farther back. It's cheaper to use stock footage than make new :)

Dr. Dunkleosteus
- 04/23/2010 at 04:54

Originally Quoted By Charles B.:

[quote]Epicurus: I dout we’d get along even face to face.

What is “evolutionary psychology” anyway?...

I’m sure you could accomplish even more if you weren’t smokin’ and tokin’!

Are you a conservationist?...

As far as Hemp is concerned, I would love to see it replace wood paper, cotton clothing, etc. entirely. That’s fine.

If you guys would stop smoking the best fiber plant in the world, then governments would be more open to its other uses.

...to be honest, I’d rather been in a room of mellow stoners than a room full* of drunks anyday.

The difference is that one is currently illeagal, and the other is not.

I’m surprised that Clinton didn’t push hemp cultivation while he was president.

I would have (if they could get low enough THC varieties...

...I’m as conservative as they come.

Hemp Hemp! Hoorah! Hemp! Hemp! Hoorah!
[/quote]

Sorry, I just had to space out those sentances a little so I could comprehend your arguement. Do you have an arguement? You seem VERY biased, contradictory, uninformed, or at least misinformed. You appear more eager to draw attention to yourself than to engauge in intellectual debate. So please, allow me a second to ponder your comment:

Your first sentance, you call someone out, attempting to pick a fight, and purposely disclose that you are closed to opinions other than your own and DOUBT that you will ever be able to get along with a person who does not share your opinion.

You question a scholar about their academic field... Yet you don't know anything about said field.

How much does one need to achieve? Will you not be satisfied unless someone wins a Nobel Prize and cures world poverty, hunger, cancer, AND AIDS?

Conservationist? Via WIKI: Conservationists are defined by what they conserve. Conservationists advocate for the protection of all the species in an ecosystem with a strong focus on the natural environment. Conservation is a part of the wider environmental movement.

I believe you're getting the term confused with (also via WIKI): Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "conserve") is a political and social philosophy that holds that traditional institutions work best and society should avoid radical change. Some conservatives seek to preserve things as they are, emphasizing stability and continuity, while others oppose modernism and seek a return to the way things were.

What other "etc"'s are you speaking about? What about fuel or food? Surely, if it were proven to be possible you would agree with that, right? What about as a medicine? Surely if it were proven to be possible you would also agree with that? Well, they are all possible, nay, they are all completely viable! Combusting it IS the way to use it! Burn it to run our cars, homes, cities, countries; it IS fuel. Roast it, boil it, bake it, steep it, fry it, sautee it, and feed millions; it IS food. Smoke it, vaporize it, eat it; it IS medicine.

You reveal that it would be safer for you to be surrounded by cannabis smokers than it would be for you to be surrounded by those intoxicated with alcohol.

What would your opinion be if both substances were legal? Would you have the same negative outlook? Would you still display blatant hypocrisy?

So THC content is your problem with cannabis? Why don't you voice such a huff about the caffine in your coffee/soft drink/energy drink? Or what about the high-fructose corn syrup in just about everything that you eat/drink? I heard on the news just this morning that drinking 20z of a beverage containg high-fructose corn syrup a day (the average consumed in America) has the potential to add 1LB of body fat PER WEEK. Who do you think is going to be less productive: someone under the influence of cannabis or someone morbidly obese with severe issues concerning mobility, accomodations, self-esteem, resources, job opportunities, social stigmas, advertising... I could go on.

This is a perennial argument and one that is usually focused on the effects of the inebriant rather than the actual reasons said plant is not being "used". IMO the reason that hemp isn't being industrially developed for paper, textiles, cellulose and plastics is because there are "INTERESTS" that would be threatened by the products a naturally occurring plant could arguably replace. Apparently some commenting here just didn't understand the greater influence that industry can have on what we are told and therefore on what we believe. This would threaten the economic stability of the biggest players in several areas of industry, but in no way is this indicative of a economic liability. In fact the opposite is far more likely to occur and NEW industries would be far more likely to develop. Can you say ECONOMIC GROWTH? In the status quo the current INDUSTRIAL GIANTS are making a boat load of money and their profit margins are relatively healthy, but if you threaten said profit margins, you will be eliminated, and that is the story of America. So the fact that people get "high" is just a good way to scare the bejeebuz out of the ignorant masses ... and it worked, works, and is working! The comments by the ignorami is in part and parcel par for the course, and the status quo is that the rich will get richer... nothing new or revealing. It is the same old tired arguments that lead down the same path to nowhere in this economic game. This film is good but not great. I wish there was a film that did analysis on the economic possibilities of changing the status quo, I realize that is speculative but when concerning this "drug" the status quo's belief is, at best, speculation as well. But given all that the best comment was by the Onion:

@Charles B. I went many years in my life not smoking cannabis and I know the difference, you wouldnt. I know what cannabis helps me with, when to use it, when not to. Why is it that you think all people who use cannabis are not living up to their full potential? what is it about cannabis which makes someone less able than they would be if they didnt smoke it?

i believe you would be a very brilliant person if you did not have so many ignorant biases. from religion to your beliefs on people who use drugs. all based on lack of information.

I suggest looking up evolutionary psychology if you dont know what it is. It is one of the most exciting fields in psychology today and is the key player in explaining why people like "you" believe what you do.

Evolutionary psychology (EP) attempts to explain psychological traits—such as memory, perception, or language—as adaptations, that is, as the functional products of natural selection or sexual selection. Adaptationist thinking about physiological mechanisms, such as the heart, lungs, and immune system, is common in evolutionary biology. Evolutionary psychology applies the same thinking to psychology.

Modern evolutionary psychologists argue that much of human behavior is generated by psychological adaptations that evolved to solve recurrent problems in human ancestral environments. They hypothesize, for example, that humans have inherited special mental capacities for acquiring language, making it nearly automatic, while inheriting no capacity specifically for reading and writing.

oh and i notice your objection to the use of cannabis up there was "The difference is that one is currently illeagal, and the other is not."....you ought to know that just because something is illegal doesnt make it wrong. you ought to be against any unjust law. at one time it was illegal to be a free black man in america. at one time alcohol was illegal.

I've been smoking weed and hash on and off for 34 years and yes, at times it makes me lazy but other times it makes me really energetic or incredibly creative.
I also use it as physical, emotional and psychological medecine and perhaps more importantly as a spiritual aid.

Hemp is the probably the most useful plant on the planet, which is exactly why it's been repressed by the petrochemical and pharmaceutical industries in recent history.
We could solve a lot of problems in the world very quickly, if we were all encouraged to start growing it tomorrow.

you cant stereotype people who smoke marijuana as lazy, because frankly im not lazy at all and i smoke regularly. im in college to be an RN making all A's and take care of a 14 month old child by myself with no help from the father. I also just started a new job and I think Im pretty well off if i do say so myself. So no.. not all stoners are lazy good-for-nothings.

Ha! I meant a room "full" of drunks not "fool" of drunks. That's funny, actually. LOL. I should stop proofreading after I click that "add comment" button as it just irritates me when I don't catch all my typos before I submit my reply, and I for one can't blame it on the Hemp, either!

Epicurus: I dout we'd get along even face to face. What is "evolutionary psychology" anyway? Anyway, I'm sure you could accomplish even more if you weren't smokin' and tokin'! Are you a conservationist? Perhaps there could be one thing that we could enjoy agree about nearly whole-heartedly.

As far as Hemp is concerned, I would love to see it replace wood paper, cotton clothing, etc. entirely. That's fine. If you guys would stop smoking the best fiber plant in the world, then governments would be more open to its other uses.

But, to be honest, I'd rather been in a room of mellow stoners than a room fool of drunks anyday. The difference is that one is currently illeagal, and the other is not.

I'm surprised that Clinton didn't push hemp cultivation while he was president. I would have (if they could get low enough THC varieties) and I'm as conservative as they come.

I have been smoking cannabis every single day for over 30 years now with no ill effect, in fact just the opposit as my skin cancer was totaly cured with the use of topical thc..
I have never commited any crime, not even a speeding ticket.
I grow my own cannabis so i am not funding any dealer, and i know that what i smoke is chemical free..
I do believe that it should be made legal.

@Chris. As a lazy daydreaming stoner who works two jobs while going to graduate school for evolutionary psychology, i have to say you are absolutely wrong and have shown that you are completely ignorant about this topic.

There are many people on this site and all over the world who have achieved more than you will imagine and also smoke cannabis. please think before you type.

Whose right is it to tell me how I enjoy my freetime? if one can drink and smoke cigarettes, how come i cant smoke some cannabis that i grow for myself?

@ChrisL: You are a fool and you show your ignorance. Do you drink a little wine or beer sometimes? Whether you do or not, what's the difference? Many professional Americans use marijuana recreationally, so get over your leftover high school attitude! Alcohol is much more dangerous, addictive, and contributes to the death tally more than pot ever could.

Hemp is a harvestable crop, like cotton; it would reduce our clear-cutting of trees for paper products too.

Those statements were completely misleading where that man said that it was marijuana being uses dating back to the paleolithic era. It was hemp and the two are not the same. Hemp does not contain THC. Just more potheads trying to make it acceptable in society to be a lazy daydreaming stoner.